IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08/04/2004
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.KANNADASAN
WRIT PETITION No.10186 of 1997
B.Jeevanandam .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Collector,
Dindigul District at Dindigul.
2.The District Collector,
Madurai District at Madurai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai.
4.The Divisional Manager,
Canara Bank (Circle Office),
Staff Section (Workmen),
St. Mary's Campus, East Veli St.,
Madurai 625 001. .. Respondents
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records relating to the orders of the first respondent passed in his
proceedings No.Na.Ka.18451/94/H1 dated 27.8.1996 and 25 .6.199 7 and quash the
same and direct the first respondent to send report to the Canara Bank, Circle
Office, Madurai, the fourth respondent herein based on the report of the third
respondent dated 7.6.1996.
!For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ramesh
^For Respondents-1to3: Mrs.N.G.Kalaiselvi,
Special Govt. Pleader.
For Respondent-4 : Mr.C.Godwin
:ORDER
The petitioner who claims to belong to Hindu Sholaga Community
which is included in the list of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order 1950
has filed the above writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 27.8.1996
and 25.6.1997 of the first respondent and for consequential relief. The
petitioner contended that he has completed his SSLC as well as Plus-two at
Madurai and his SSLC certificate as well as transfer certificate disclose that
he belongs to Hindu Sholaga Community. The petitioner has obtained community
certificate dated 3 .1.198 6 from Tahsildar, Nattam Taluk which originally
formed part of Madurai District and later on included in Dindigul District
after bifurcation. According to the petitioner the said certificate was
issued to him after due enquiry and verification of entire records. It is
further contended that the petitioner was selected as Clerk in the fourth
respondent-bank during 1985 and the above community certificate was produced
at the time of his appointment in the fourth respondentbank during January
1986 and after verifying the community certificate as well as other connected
records, he was allowed to join duty as a Clerk after completion of his
training period. However, nearly after completion of several years of
service, the fourth respondent-bank has chosen to verify the community status
of the petitioner and issued a communication dated 11.4.1994 directing the
petitioner to appear for enquiry in the Office of the Tahsildar, Dindigul.
Even though the said direction is issued by the fourth respondent-bank to
appear for enquiry, in the very said communication, the fourth respondent has
indicated that the petitioner would not be eligible for leave on duty and also
not eligible for travelling and other allowances. As directed by the fourth
respondent, he has appeared for an enquiry before the Tahsildar. Later on,
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul has directed him to appear for
enquiry on 25.9.1995. Accordingly, the petitioner has appeared on the said
date and once again produced all the documents available in his custody and
also participated in the enquiry. After completion of the said enquiry, the
Revenue Divisional Officer through his letter dated 8.1.1996 informed the
District Collector, Dindigul viz., the first respondent to the effect that an
enquiry has to be conducted at Madurai by referring to the fact that the
petitioner was born at Madurai. The above decision was taken by the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Dindigul on the basis of production of the birth
certificate by the petitioner in the course of enquiry before him.
Accordingly, the first respondent in his letter dated 3.4.1996 has requested
the second respondent viz., the District Collector, Madurai to conduct an
enquiry who in turn has delegated his powers upon the third respondent, viz.,
the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai to conduct an enquiry and to submit
his report. The third respondent has conducted an enquiry on 10.5.1996 and in
the course of enquiry, the petitioner, petitioner’s father and his close
relative A.Marudiah and other residents have appeared and gave statement in
support of the claim of the petitioner. The third respondent has also
independently conducted another enquiry through Madurai South Zonal Deputy
Tahsildar on 2 3.5.1996 and in the said enquiry the petitioner and his
relative have participated. After the said enquiry, a final conclusion was
arrived at by the third respondent in his report dated 7.6.1996 holding that
the petitioner belonged to Hindu Sholaga community and the said report was
forwarded to the second respondent. The second respondent has accepted the
said report of the third respondent inasmuch as the communication was sent by
him in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.56153 dated 28.6.1996 wherein the final
report submitted by the third respondent was forwarded. The first respondent
has also forwarded another report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai
dated 30.5.1996 wherein the details with reference to the ancestors of the
petitioner have been set out and the relationship of the petitioner with one
A. Marudiah has been traced and further details of migration of the
petitioner’s ancestors from Tirunelveli District to Madurai District have been
disclosed. In view of the fact that the third respondent has finally
concluded about the community status of the petitioner with reference to his
ancestors and other documents produced viz., the school registers and a sale
deed dated 21.5.1963 pertaining to the above mentioned A.Marudiah, which came
into existence even prior to the birth of the petitioner, the first respondent
instead of communicating the favourable report pertaining to the community
status of the petitioner, has chosen to send the impugned communications dated
27.8.1996 and 25 .6 .1997 resulting in the petitioner to approach this Court.
The communication dated 27.8.1996 is addressed to the District Collector,
Tirunelveli District, directing him to submit a further report relating to the
ancestors of the petitioner and the communication dated 25.6.1997 is a notice
issued on behalf of the respondent calling upon the petitioner to appear for
enquiry once again in the office of the first respondent. In view of the
repeated enquiries and the attitude of the first respondent who is
unnecessarily prolonging the issue in spite of the receipt of a favourable
finding from a high ranking Officer viz., the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai which is acted upon by the second respondent viz., the District
Collector, Madurai, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition for the
relief stated therein.
2. The fourth respondent has filed a counter-affidavit
contending that there is nothing wrong on the part of the fourth respondent to
verify the community certificate produced by the petitioner and also contended
that in view of the direction of the Central Government dated 5.11.1992, the
present enquiry is ordered in respect of the petitioner.
3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 to 3 has contended that there is nothing wrong on the part of
the respondents to conduct enquiry through various Officers until they are
satisfied about the claim made by the petitioner.
4. I have considered the rival claims of the parties.
5. Before adverting to the manner in which the enquiry was
conducted by the respondents 1 to 3 it would be useful to examine the
circumstances under which the present enquiry is initiated at the instance of
the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent in para-4 of the
counter-affidavit has stated as follows:-
“The Government of India has issued guidelines for appointment of
SC/ST candidates to post in Government of India Undertakings. The guidelines
issued by the Government provide that the Community Certificate in the
prescribed format shall be issued by one of the five Authorities noted below:-
(1) District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate/Collector/….
.. ... ... ...
... ... ...
(2) Chief Presidency Magistrate/Additional Chief Presidency
Magistrate/Presidency Magistrate.
(3) Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar.
(4) Sub-Divisional Officer of the area where the candidate and/or his
family normally resides.
(5) Administrator/Secretary to Administrator/Development Officer (
Lakshdweep Islands)”
On a reference to the above, it is clearly admitted that one of the competent
authority to issue the community certificate is the Revenue Officer not below
the rank of Tahsildar. The fourth respondent has further admitted that the
petitioner has produced a community certificate dated 3.1.1986 issued by the
Tahsildar Nattam Taluk. The counter-affidavit further proceeds to the effect
that the present enquiry is initiated by the fourth respondent on the basis of
the communication of the Central Government in its letter No.101/34/92SCT (B)
dated 5 .11.1992 wherein it is mentioned that the community certificate in
respect of scheduled tribe candidates from Tamilnadu who have joined in the
services on and after 11.11.1989 are required to submit their certificates
duly signed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and those who have joined prior
to 11.11.1989, the certificates produced by them should be verified through
the concerned District Collectors. The counter also proceeds further that the
present enquiry was required only on the basis of the abovesaid communication.
A further reference is also made in the counter-affidavit that as per the
brochure on ‘ Reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Services’,
the employer is entitled to verify if it considers necessary at any time after
appointment.
6. In the light of the above pleadings, it is seen that the
competent authority to issue the community certificate is the Tahsildar at the
relevant point of time. Inasmuch as the petitioner has produced a community
certificate obtained from a competent authority and it is nobody’s case that
the said certificate was not issued by the said authority, it is not known as
to what prompted the fourth respondent to suddenly conduct an enquiry nearly
after several years of appointment viz., after a decade. Assuming that the
fourth respondent is constrained to conduct an enquiry on the basis of a
communication issued by the Central Government dated 5.11.1992, it appears
that the fourth respondent has not appreciated the purpose for which the above
communication was sent by the Central Government. It is an admitted fact that
as far as the Tamilnadu is concerned, the State Government has passed a
Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.2137 dated 11.11.1989 wherein the list of
authorities empowered to issue community certificate in respect of scheduled
tribes are concerned was designated as the Revenue Divisional Officer on and
from 11.11.1989. Inasmuch as the new authority is authorised to issue the
community certificate from a particular date viz., 11.11.1989, it is quite
natural for the Government of India to issue a direction as stated above to
require the individuals from Tamilnadu to obtain community certificates only
from the Revenue Divisional Officers. Under the said circumstances, any
further direction to the effect that all the individuals who have already
joined service or got the community certificates prior to 11.11.1989 from the
list of authorities originally empowered to issue the community certificates
should not be required to obtain another community certificate as a matter of
course. In fact, when the interpretation of the said order of the State
Government came into question, the Apex Court in its judgment in R.Kandasamy
vs. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust (JT 1997 (7) SC 660) has held that
all the community certificates issued prior to 11.11.1989 by the Tahsildars
have to be treated as valid one. The Apex Court while rendering the above
decision has directed that the petitioner who has to be promoted to the higher
post is not required to produce another community certificate as long as the
earlier community certificate issued by the Tahsildar is not cancelled. Even
the brochure on “Reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in
services” proceeds to the effect that the employers can conduct enquiry only
if it is necessary and no where it is indicated that in the absence of any
materials or circumstances warranting the authorities, such enquiry can be
conducted in a casual manner at the whims and fancies of the employers. The
entire counter-affidavit do not disclose about the existence of any other
reasons except the communication of the Government of India which is general
in nature. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, the communication
of Government of India dated 5.11.1992 has no relevance and the same need not
be acted upon. His Lordship P. SATHASIVAM, J., in the judgment in R.Gurusamy
vs. District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore and Others (1999 (3)
MLJ 88) has considered the question of verification of a community certificate
of an individual and held therein that merely on the basis of complaints
received from third parties, the verification process should not be initiated
as the same would amount to harassment. In the absence of any other reasons
available for the fourth respondent to cause verification of the community
status of the petitioner, I am convinced that the present enquiry is initiated
in a mechanical manner and such enquiries would amount to harassment to the
employees concerned.
7. In fact, the Supreme Court in its decision rendered in
Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development (AIR 1995 SC 94
) at para 8, has emphasised that the State is enjoined under the Constitution
to provide facilities and opportunities for development of the Scheduled
Tribes scientific temper, educational advancement and economic improvement, so
that they may achieve excellence, equality of status and live in dignity.
Further emphasis is also made that reservation in admission to educational
institutions and employment are major State policies to accord to the tribes,
social and economic justice apart from other economic measures. The Apex
Court further emphasised that under the said circumstances, the Union of India
and State Government have prescribed the procedure and has entrusted the duty
and responsibility to the Revenue Officers who are gazetted cadre to issue
social status certificate after due verification. In the light of the above
observation of the Apex Court and admittedly when the petitioner has produced
a community certificate from the Tahsildar as early as in the year 1996, who
is a gazetted Officer, the action of the fourth respondent in suspecting the
genuineness of the said certificate without the existence of any materials is
not justified.
8. As regards the procedure adopted by the first respondent
in finding out the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner is concerned, it
is seen that the petitioner is subjected to untold misery and hardship. The
enquiry was initially conducted by the office of the Tahsildar, Dindigul
during 1994 and thereafter by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul on
25.9.1995 and subsequently, a report was submitted on 8.1.1996 by him to the
first respondent. The first respondent in turn has called upon the second
respondent to conduct an enquiry once again on the ground that the petitioner
was born at Madurai. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not
suppressed at any point of time about his place of birth as Madurai in the
enquiry conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul. As per the
directions of the first respondent, the second respondent has directed the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai viz., the third respondent to conduct a
detailed enquiry. Accordingly, a further enquiry was held in the office of
the third respondent on 10.5.1996 on which date, the petitioner, his father
and his relatives and his close relative one A. Marudiah and other residents
appeared and gave statement apart from the production of documentary
evidences, including the registered document of the year 1963 which came into
existence prior to the birth of the petitioner. Apart from the said enquiry,
a discreet enquiry was conducted independently by the third respondent on
23.5.1996 through Madurai South Zonal Deputy Tahsildar. After completion of
all such formalities, the third respondent has forwarded a detailed report on
30.5.19 96 with regard to the migration of the petitioner’s ancestors from
Tirunelveli District and the relationship between the petitioner with one
A.Marudiah was traced. Finally another report was submitted on 8 .6.1996 by
the third respondent holding that the petitioner belongs to the Sholaga
community, which is included in the list of scheduled tribes. The second
respondent on receipt of the above mentioned two reports from the third
respondent has informed the first respondent that as per the report of the
third respondent, the petitioner belongs to Hindu Sholaga community. Even
though the second respondent has sent a communication dated 28.6.1996, by
merely requesting the first respondent to take a final decision, in effect the
enquiry was concluded and the report of the third respondent was acted upon
wherein it is held that the petitioner as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe
Community. The enquiry was delegated to the second respondent on the ground
that the petitioner was born at Madurai and he has obtained a community
certificate from the Tahsildar, Nattam Taluk which originally form part of
Madurai District and as such, the findings of the Revenue Authorities of the
Madurai District have to be treated as final and binding upon the other
authorities. In fact, the second respondent has not rejected the report of
the Revenue Divisional Officer and he has only forwarded the said reports
which would mean that he has also affirmed the decision of the third
respondent.
9. Even though a favourable finding was arrived at by the
third respondent, as communicated by the second respondent, the first
respondent has again took the view that the matter should not be given a
quietus and chosen to send the impugned communication dated 27.8.1996
addressed to the District Collector, Tirunelveli to conduct an enquiry in
respect of the petitioner’s relative A.Marudiah as well as the community
certificate issued to the said A.Marudiah and to forward a report and also
chosen to send another communication dated 27.5.1996 calling upon the
petitioner to appear for another enquiry. Inasmuch as an elaborate enquiry
was conducted initially by the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Dindigul and thereafter the two enquiries by the third respondent, viz., the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai and the decision of the second respondent
in forwarding the final report of the third respondent, it is not known as to
why the first respondent has again entertained a further doubt with regard to
the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner.
10. It is seen from the averments made by the petitioner in
the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the Government of India,
Social Welfare Department in memo No.34796/HW/III/76 dated 16.8.197 5 on the
basis of the report of the then District Collector, Tirunelveli has
recommended the petitioner’s relative A.Marudiah to be nominated as a member
of the District Harijan Welfare Committee. At the relevant point of time, the
said A.Marudiah was appointed as the President of the Tiruneveli District
Sholaga Community. In pursuance of the said notification, the Government of
India has also nominated the said A.Marudiah on 16.8.1975 as the member of the
said committee. The above said A.Marudiah is none-else than the brother of
the petitioner’s maternal grandfather.
His Lordship P. SATHASIVAM, J., in the judgment in N.Rajeswari vs. The
District Collector, Nellai Kattabomman District, Tirunelveli and others (WP
No.19793 of 1992 dated 24.9.1999) has considered the above mentioned facts
while considering the claim of the petitioner therein, has rendered a finding
that the petitioner belonged to Hindu Sholaga Community. In the said
judgment, the learned Judge has made a reference about the community status of
the above mentioned A. Marudiah, who is also related to the petitioner
therein. Inasmuch as the third respondent has submitted a detailed report
tracing the relationship between the petitioner herein with the abovesaid
A.Marudiah and having submitted a favourable report to the effect that the
petitioner is belonging to Hindu Sholaga Community, the further enquiry by the
first respondent would tantamount to taking a contrary view of the decision of
the learned Judge in the judgment referred supra. In fact, the impugned
communication of the first respondent dated 25.6.1997 merely proceeds to the
effect that an enquiry will be conducted again and the petitioner is directed
to appear in the office of the first respondent. The other communication
dated 27.8.1996 addressed by the first respondent to the District Collector,
Tirunelveli District proceeds to the effect that an enquiry shall be conducted
in respect of the abovesaid A.Marudiah, who has already been recognised by
this Court as belonging to Hindu Sholaga Community in the decision referred
supra. Under the said circumstances, there is no necessity for the first
respondent to prolong the enquiry in the guise of collecting further details.
11. As regards the legal issues are concerned, it is needless
to point out that once a favourable report is arrived at in respect of the
community status of an individual is concerned, there shall not be a further
enquiry which would be nothing but a harassment. In fact, the Apex Court in
its judgment in Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development
(AIR 1995 SC 94) has held that once a favourable report is received to the
effect that the claim of the individual is genuine, no further action need be
taken unless such report is fraudulently obtained. Admittedly, in the case on
hand, the impugned communication of the first respondent do not suggest that
earlier report of the second respondent as well as the third respondent was
fraudulently obtained. The Division Bench of this Court rendered a judgment
in Sakthi Devi, S.P. vs. The Collector of Salem, Salem etc. ( Vol.98
L.W.105) by their Lordships M.N.CHANDURKAR, CHIEF JUSTICE, and SATHIADEV, J.,
wherein it was held that once a favourable report is received from the Revenue
Authorities to the effect that the community certificate is genuine thereafter
the certificate holder cannot be further harassed to prove his community
status. His Lordship S.S. SUBRAMANI, J., in the judgment in S.Natarajan vs.
District Collector, Tuticorin and Others (AIR 1999 MADRAS 241) wherein held
that once a member of the family was declared as belonging to the scheduled
tribe community, the other members should not be denied for the issuance of
the said certificate. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioner’s
grandfather’s brother by name A.Marudiah is held to be belonging to scheduled
tribe community by decision rendered by this Court referred to supra, and he
is also possessing a valid community certificate and as such the petitioner
who is also a member of his family, should not be denied the same benefits.
The Apex court in its judgment rendered in GAYATRILAXMI BAPURAO NAGPURE vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (19 96 (3) SCC 685) has held that a wrongful denial of a
caste certificate to the genuine candidate will deprive the privileges
conferred upon the said individual by the Constitution and as such, it is
emphasised that greater care must be taken before granting or rejecting any
claim for caste certificate. The Apex Court while rendering the above
judgment has taken note of the principles laid down in the Madhuri Patil’s
case and found that the rejection of the claim of the individual therein about
her community status in spite of production of several documentary evidences
was bad in law. Inasmuch as a favourable report is arrived at in respect of
the petitioner’s community status, he cannot be further harassed to prove his
community status. The above proposition of law is emphasised in number of
cases and they are:
1. B.Kumari vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman
District, Tirunelveli (WP 12083 of 1995 dated 9.6.2000)
2. R.Nirmala vs. The District Collector, Salem District, Salem and
another (WP 11140 of 1997 dated 21.8.2002)
3. S.Nambiraj vs. The District Collector, Tirunelveli Kattabomman
District, Tirunelveli and two others (WP 17665 of 1993 dated 2.7.2002 )
4. The Sub Collector, Hosur, Dharmapuri District and two others vs.
P.M.Muni Reddi (WA 1054 of 1986 dated 25.4.1989)
5. T.Padmanabhan and T.Karthikeyan vs. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli and two others (WPs 12439 and 12440 of 1997 dated 17.3.19 99).
12. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion
that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the writ petitioner
has to be treated as belonging to Hindu Sholaga Community which is included in
the list of Scheduled Tribes. The writ petition is allowed, however, there
will be no order as to costs.
Index : Yes.
Internet : Yes.
svn
To
1.The District Collector,
Dindigul District at Dindigul.
2.The District Collector,
Madurai District at Madurai.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Madurai.
4.The Divisional Manager,
Canara Bank (Circle Office),
Staff Section (Workmen),
St. Mary’s Campus, East Veli St.,
Madurai 625 001.